Do you see benefit in giving more power to those elected by the people than the people who aren't elected? This actually seems like the more democratic approach. Though I think to handle too much sudden change, some limits should be imposed, but not sure what that limit should be.

They of course are bounded by the constitution and haven't claimed otherwise. The court decides if something is unconstitutional and I do think impeachment is certainly a venue for accountability as well

You say they're unelected as if they weren't put there by people who were elected. When I vote for my representative, I undertand their job is to lobby for the interest of people in my community. That representation ideally results in a law or some other formal instruction which is the product of a compromise between competing interests.

If one of those competing interests can just become president and then blow up any and all compromises whenever he wants, that is a recipe for instability, as the next guy who comes in will do the same, and then no one gets what they want. His job is to execute the laws the Congress passes, not to substitute his own judgement for Congress' when it comes to the laws he wants to execute. He has to execute them all, and that includes funding agencies he personally disagrees with but we all want to work. It's not his country, it's ours.

> Do you see benefit in giving more power to those elected by the people than the people who aren't elected?

Yes. In a representative democracy, a plurality of views are represented in government, enabling checks and balances to prevent arbitrary and corrupt governance. When the president is allowed to eviscerate independent bodies and replace their leadership and fill their ranks with loyalists, you get further and further from an expression of the will of the people and closer and closer to totalitarianism.

Russia is a nominal democracy. Putin is the elected leader. He enjoys unchecked power, of which Trump is nakedly envious. Do you think that Russia’s approach is "more democratic" than that of the US because of the strength of its executive?